Man indicted for killing intruder

This is a discussion on Man indicted for killing intruder within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Man indicted for killing intruder | The Columbus Dispatch
Strange assertions of facts....

It sounds like an ambitious DA who might be looking to make his political mark with a case like this one. Hopefully the DA gets his fanny kicked in court and finds himself stuck at a junior DA desk for the rest of his career.

I doubt there is anyway the DA can make that stick. Castle Doctrine at least in ky and Im pretty sure in OH but dont quote me on Oh is that you have no duty to retreat anywhere you are allowed to be legally. That would include your patio or on the street corner if attacked. I know Ky is that way and I think Oh is too.

Even if it is not that way in OH. The shooter has witnesses saying he was inside. Simply because the perp was on the patio doesnt prove he was not inside when shot and made his way out that far then dropped. The perp apparently wont be testifying.

If the mutt was shot inside the home, there will be forensic evidence to prove that fact. If this is the case, this homeowner will walk. Because the mutt manages to stumble outside before he dies, should have no impact on whether the homeowner is indicted or not.

If he's outside, and he was shot outside, and he was in fact unarmed and presenting no threat to the homeowner, I think it's a coin flip. I'd like to think a decent attorney (not even a good attorney) could win this in court, with a jury. I'll not debate the finer points of the castle doctrine, as it varies from state to state, and I don't live in Columbus, Ohio.

One must always remember the definition of "jury" though. Jury as defined by me, for these purposes, is a group of people, to stupid to get out of jury duty. Do you really want them sitting in judgement of the facts, when your life is in the balance? Nah, me neither. :)

This is what has happend in Britian. Homeowners just have no rights to defend life and property. Often they are prosecuted for so-called taking the law into their own hands. Criminals are hailed as victims of the people they victimize.

This is sheer madness and if this Prosecuting Attorney is allowed to make this case an example of what will happen if you defend yourself, even inside of the sanctuary of your home, we are in for a rough ride into the future.

We may as well just open up our homes and let the thugs take whatever they want, including lives.

Hopefully a jury will see otherwise or this indictment goes extinct before it even gets to a jury.

If the mutt was shot inside the home, there will be forensic evidence to prove that fact. If this is the case, this homeowner will walk. Because the mutt manages to stumble outside before he dies, should have no impact on whether the homeowner is indicted or not.

If he's outside, and he was shot outside, and he was in fact unarmed and presenting no threat to the homeowner, I think it's a coin flip. I'd like to think a decent attorney (not even a good attorney) could win this in court, with a jury. I'll not debate the finer points of the castle doctrine, as it varies from state to state, and I don't live in Columbus, Ohio.

One must always remember the definition of "jury" though. Jury as defined by me, for these purposes, is a group of people, to stupid to get out of jury duty. Do you really want them sitting in judgement of the facts, when your life is in the balance? Nah, me neither. :)

Be safe.

If It was a semi auto then shell casing should be inside the house,revolver and your not going to have the case as evidence,some gunshots may not bleed out for several seconds or leave any splatter so the perp may have a chance to get outside before leaking any evidence.I guess the DA figures no blood inside he must of been shot outside.

Another less than astute prosecutor trying to pad his numbers on the back of a law abiding citizen(if the perp was shot inside.)These situations are all too common. Yes, the BGs have too many rights in our "system."

It sounds to me like the DA is looking for precedent more than anything. He needs a win or a loss to define the line where castle doctrine begins and ends. I'm cheering for the defendant in this one. The perp broke into his house, and regardless of whether or not he was armed, he was a clear and present threat.